piracy, Asimov, you, and me

[wbaguhn@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Will Baguhn)]

I would just like to clarify my position on piracy, and Asimov.  It seems
that I've been identified as an enemy of copyrights... I'm not.  I'm not
going to copy people's things if they're still actively pursuing revenue
from it.  I don't endorse that, because it's WRONG.

But, I like Asimov and I think that it's a good place.  (i've used it
twice.  I downloaded Below the Root and Amazon, and was disappointed
in both cases.  I couldn't get Amazon onto floppies properly, and 
BtR was cracked off of a bad disk, so some of the screens were messed
up.... besides which, i lost the manuals for each, and had forgotten
the finer points of play.)

How can these viewpoints coexist?  It is a balance between technicality
and practicality.  Technically, copyright law says that the author
(or author's employer) owns the work and all rights to it for an insanely
long time, no matter what medium the work is in.  The practical viewpoint
on this is that the computer software medium is much more fickle than
print.  Specifically, people will still read and buy 50 or 100 year old
works as new (Shakespeare?  Whitman? etc) when they're books, but
it's a little different when it comes around to software (ENIAC software.
mm-hmm.  HUGE market there.).  Hardware progresses, software progresses,
what is expected of a computer changes, and the purpose of a copyright
gets lost.  The purpose of a copyright is, quite simply, to protect the
copyright holder's monetary interests.

Now then, for the benefit of some of you...

* Most of the developers have gone on to greener pastures, because
they've seen that there's not enough interest (read: $$$) to keep them
around.  Those that had the foresight to release their works into the
public domain/freeware status before they left, wonderful.  Those that
didn't probably don't care anymore anyway, as they're off making
more money doing something else.

* Those that still DO care would be aware of this infringement, and
would be doing something about it.  If that's just bitching on CSA2,
well then there's better things to do.  If that's calling up the site
in question and saying "Hey, that's my code, take it off your site",
that's better.

It would be NICE if places like Asimov asked before making available
copies of software, but the truth is that many copyright holders would
sooner say "no" and save themselves the trouble of whatever may come 
from allowing it, or from uncertainty of who actually holds the copyright,
etc.. so nothing will be availble, and the usefulness of the effort
is diminished to practically nil.  It's legal, according to all
technicalities, and everyone is happy, except for people who can't get
the software.

On a further note, wouldn't it seem a good indicator of "caring about
copyrights" if when called and asked about their Apple II software,
publishing houses say "we never published anything for the Apple II."?

It seems to ME like if they don't acknowledge it exists, it must not,
so no copyrights are being violated.  <shrug>  ;)

Also, as an amendment to the "proposal of making Asimov legal", how
about sending out a notice to copyright holders that Asimov would like
to make their old software available to the public, and would that be ok?
And at the same time, include in the letter/email that if no response
is heard in 2 months, we'll just assume that you don't care anymore
and have it available.  It may be RUDE, it may be illegal on a technicality,
but it's far more realistic.

Yes, there are lawyers out there who belabor technicalities to death,
but isn't the Apple II community above all that?

I'm about done ranting on this.

-- 
                                      --- Rev. SPQR (wbaguhn@nyx.net)